Top of the Draft Positional Budgeting Trends

[AKC]

So, basically, you chose data only on super bowl winners to make your argument look good?

 

Dude-

 

I chose Super Bowl teams because my interest runs to discovering the trends in their drafting styles that differ from the Buffalo Bills. Those trends are:

 

The Bills favor WRs over DL and the good teams like DL over the WR by a huge margin.

 

The Bills favor drafting Offense and the good teams favor drafting Defense.

 

The good teams have by a large margin used round 1 and 2 equity on the TE position- while the Bills have not.

 

It's not hard to see- the numbers prove it- or you can do as others and pull a WR jersey over your eyes and kick and scream that it can't be true. (But it is).

[Lurker]

The big differnce is when the Colts draft a WR high, that player produces on the field. The Bills have wasted 2nd round picks on WRs that are not starter quality - which is why they will probably blow another high pick on an overrated WR that will again under-perform on the field.

I know you're on a mission from God to slag a non-DL/OL pick...but don't you think having a HOF QB has something to do with that?

[Ramius]

The methodolgy is fully broken down. A 5th grade math student could follow it. I recognize it doesn't fit your fantasies about what teams do early, but these are the facts based upon a mathematical study framed in what I believe to be the most reasonable time frame for determining what Buffalo and Detroit are doing in the draft while the best teams stay on top (last 7 drafts, last 5 playoff years).

 

Indy has a cumulative score of 68 at the WR position over the past 7 drafts, and a cumulative score of 77 at DL. That means their ratio of DL to WR fits the winning model of 88% of the Super Bowl teams over the past 5 years.

 

As to how each team does it, the formula's in a spreadsheet that won't take to well to this format but you asked for it-

 

Giants Colts Steelers Patriots*

 

DL 82 0.21 DL 77 0.24 DL 46 0.11 DL 157 0.35

DB 110 0.28 DB 76 0.24 DB 76 0.19 DB 70 0.16

WR 54 0.14 WR 68 0.21 WR 43 0.11 WR 50 0.11

TE 51 0.13 TE 41 0.13 TE 35 0.09 TE 77 0.17

LB 0.00 LB 0.00 LB 114 0.28 LB 0.00

OL 31 0.08 OL 23 0.07 OL 35 0.09 OL 50 0.11

RB 0.00 RB 35 0.11 RB 0.00 RB 44 0.10

QB 61 0.16 QB 0.00 QB 54 0.13 QB 0.00

 

Total 389 320 403 448

 

 

 

Bears Seahawks Eagles Panthers

 

DL 123 0.26 DL 49 0.13 DL 143 0.37 DL 84 0.19

DB 61 0.13 DB 123 0.32 DB 52 0.14 DB 95 0.21

WR 83 0.18 WR 56 0.15 WR 70 0.18 WR 23 0.05

TE 34 0.07 TE 37 0.10 TE 4 0.01 TE 0.00

LB 0.00 LB 20 0.05 LB 12 0.03 LB 94 0.21

OL 36 0.08 OL 87 0.23 OL 75 0.19 OL 72 0.16

RB 88 0.19 RB 11 0.03 RB 0.00 RB 80 0.18

QB 43 0.09 QB 0.00 QB 29 0.08 QB 0.00

 

468 383 385 448

 

 

Just because you've gotten your panties in a bunch as the leader of the "Draft the new Josh Reed at 11" Bandwagon doesn't mean you should be lying about other poster's history.

 

just running some simple numbers from your studies shows me that when it comes to DL, the teams you listed have an average of 23% of resources, thay also carry a standard deviation of 9%. Thats a fairly high deviation and does nothing to support your argument. As for WRs, they have an average of 14% with a deviation of 5%. Notice how the bills easily fall within 1 S.D. of your "good drafting" teams. Thsi simply shows that its not what position you draft, its the fact that you need to draft good players.

 

And again, this argument is worthless with no control group (the rest of the league, and league averages) to compare it to.

[Lurker]

Go ahead and put your own time in- for me, my interest runs into why the good teams draft better than the Bills.

Simple...they have better talent at key skill positions to start with.

[Captain Hindsight]

just running some simple numbers from your studies shows me that when it comes to DL, the teams you listed have an average of 23% of resources, thay also carry a standard deviation of 9%. Thats a fairly high deviation and does nothing to support your argument. As for WRs, they have an average of 14% with a deviation of 5%. Notice how the bills easily fall within 1 S.D. of your "good drafting" teams. Thsi simply shows that its not what position you draft, its the fact that you need to draft good players.

 

And again, this argument is worthless with no control group (the rest of the league, and league averages) to compare it to.

Without that this data cant be proven at all

[Fingon]

Seriously, these numbers are WORTHLESS until you do the whole league. What if a team like the raiders has the same trends as the giants or colts?

[AKC]

Simple...they have better talent at key skill positions to start with.

 

If you aren't feeding the key position talent for 7 straight drafts, you sure won't be up there for long ;-)

[Ramius]

Seriously, these numbers are WORTHLESS until you do the whole league. What if a team like the raiders has the same trends as the giants or colts?

 

AKC tends to ignore facts that refute his nonsensical point.

[Dibs]

I picked the past 7 draft seasons- because I'm actually trying to see how the best teams today stay at the top.

If you really want to establish a correlation to the draft.....even though it is just one of many, many factors in building a team.....and you want to compare it to superbowl teams.......then you should analyse the 7 drafts leading up to each superbowl teams record NOT the latest 7 drafts.

The reasons for doing this are IMO obvious. It would show the draft trends leading up to the teams pinnacle achievement.....not after. Also, since one singular team comprises a full 40% of the data(Pats) using a system of stagnant drafting analysis skews the result greatly in favour of that one team......in this case heavy DL drafting.

 

I can only imagine that you have chosen this particular methodology of studying the draft to not actually garner information in order to find a trend......but to actually attempt to prove a long running theory you have.

 

Using your system with the preceding 7 drafts of each SB appearance.....

Giants

I was going to waste my time doing all 10 teams(which would definitely show the Steelers used more on WR than DL) but upon doing the Giants......which both of our methods would use the same drafts(the last 7).....I found.....

DB 26%

DL 21%

QB 15%

WR 14%

TE 13%

OL 9%

LB 1%

RB 0%

 

I can't for the life of me figure what your point could possibly be. DBs lead the way with the Giants. 14% was spent on WRs.....to achieve 14% a team could chose a few in the 2nd or late 1st rounds.....or hit one good one high in the draft(as the Giants did at the QB position(15%). One would actually expect more DL drafting than WR for the simple factor that most teams start 2 WRs & 4(3) DL.

 

If your concern is that the Bills front office does not hold the same philosophy as yourself......just look at the history of where they have chosen to spend their overall resources. They clearly have placed heavy emphasis on the lines.

 

You have tried to prove this theory in the past. It didn't work then just as it doesn't work now. The whole concept is so waaaaay over simplified that apart from the data not actually backing your point, it falls flat against the myriad of other factors involved. Just a simple one......if E.Manning had become a bust instead of a SB winner then the percentage spent at QB would definitely have gone up(thus dropping the other percentages). This would work at all positions. If a high picked DL busts then more resources would need to be spent on the DL than normal.....if a high picked DB or WR busts then ditto.

FApickups, injury, later picked gems, UDFA, FA loses......all of these will effect what a team does in regards to their drafting strategy.

[BillsVet]

So a guy goes and studies the top 2 rounds of the last seven drafts for SB teams, declares his findings, and it's disputed?

 

Arguing with Raimus is like yelling at what Raimus rhymes with...you'll never get anywhere. It's like trying to tell a blind man what Niagara Falls looks like.

 

Amazingly, people still don't understand that the game is won in the trenches and with QB's. Go figure, Losman wasn't good, the OL had guys like Villarrial, Gandy, and Fowler starting one season. The DT's were sub 300 pounders pushed out of the way like a bully taking candy from a kindergartner. No playoffs? Makes plenty of sense.

 

Good teams draft DL, as a matter of fact. Not surprisingly, the Bills starting front four this coming season were all originally drafted in either rounds 1 or 2! And we wonder if DL isn't important!

[Astrobot]

just running some simple numbers from your studies shows me that when it comes to DL, the teams you listed have an average of 23% of resources, thay also carry a standard deviation of 9%. Thats a fairly high deviation and does nothing to support your argument. As for WRs, they have an average of 14% with a deviation of 5%. Notice how the bills easily fall within 1 S.D. of your "good drafting" teams. Thsi simply shows that its not what position you draft, its the fact that you need to draft good players.

 

And again, this argument is worthless with no control group (the rest of the league, and league averages) to compare it to.

 

Standard Deviation? Saturday can't come soon enough.

[Rockinon]

Wow. Statistics that actually say what I have been thinking.

[Rockinon]

DBs lead the way with the Giants

Bull.....The Giants lead the league in Sacks. That would make any DB look good.

[Lofton80]

This article from Ourlads sheds light on drafting trends that support picking a wr early. An interesting article.

 

I will paste the conclusion of their statistical study.

 

"What’s not shocking is the obvious need to find your cornerback, running back, tight end, and wide receiver talent in the first two rounds. For each of those positions, 1st and 2nd round were the rounds with the highest rate of two-deep talent over the last three NFL seasons: 47%, 50%, 37%, and 45% of the two-deep talent at each position, respectively, was acquired in the first two rounds. Those are sizeable numbers not to be ignored. Get talent at CB, RB, TE, and WR early or you’ll be waiting for them to develop into contributors."

 

 

http://ourlads.com/dayone.cfm

[Fastro]

Be careful about how you analyze the data. The draft does not take into account what players are on the team before the draft or what a team does in free agency. I would say the sample size is not big enough for any appreciable trending. Of course I sucked at stats in school.

 

50% of the numbers lie 90% of the time.

[Orton's Arm]

Studying the drafting trends of the way Super Bowl teams approach the Top of the Draft versus the Buffalo Bills (one of only 4 teams in the NFL to have missed the playoffs this Millennium) may offer some insight into why we’ve been one of the consistently bad teams in the league for an extended period of time.

 

Using the draft records of Super Bowl teams allows a look into how those teams have “budgeted” at specific positions at the Top of the Draft. This study does not establish whether these Positional Budgeting Trends are a conscious strategy on the part of all or any of the teams in the study, but the trends do represent contrasts between the players Super Bowl teams target at the Top of the Draft versus the positions the Buffalo Bills have been drafting.

 

The methodology used for the study follows the primary trending results.

 

A comparison of Super Bowl Draft Budgets versus the Bills looks like this:

 

Super Bowl Teams: Giants, Colts, Steelers, Pats*, Bears, Seahawks, Eagles, Panthers:

 

% of Draft Top of the Budget by Position:

 

Super Bowl Teams

 

DL 23%

DB 21%

WR 14%

OL 12%

TE 9%

RB 8%

LB 7%

QB 6%

 

Bills

 

DL 16%

DB 20%

WR 18%

OL 12%

TE 0%

RB 20%

LB 6%

QB 8%

 

A few substantial differences in tendencies:

 

Buffalo has used 59% of its draft budget in the study period for Offensive players, while the Super Bowl Team Draft Budgets favor Defensive selections more often than Offensive.

 

Buffalo has “outspent” the Super Bowl teams at RB and WR while “under spending” them at TE and DL.

 

This makes the following areas those in which Buffalo most widely bucks the Top of the Draft Trends of Super Bowl teams:

 

A) Bills have a higher Top of the Draft spend on Offense than Defense, contrary to the trend with Super Bowl teams

B) Bills have no TE selection at the top, whereas all but one Super Bowl team has spent a portion of their Top of the Draft Budget on the position.

C) Bills have spent a higher ratio of their budget on WRs versus DL, bucking the Super Bowl team trend of loading up on DL at the Top of the Draft

 

Every Super Bowl team except the Seahawks has a higher DL spend than they do at WR. The DL/WR ratio favoring the DL is common among 87.5% of the Super Bowl Teams. Buffalo is already out of balance on this trend, and a selection of a WR with the #11 pick this season would put us at a nearly 1:2 DL/WR ratio, a stark contrast to the almost 2:1 ratio favored by the Super Bowl Teams on average. (The ratio favoring DL over WRs is also a trait of recent playoff teams like the Cowboys, the Chargers and the Packers).

 

Every Super Bowl Team except the Panthers has a Top of the Draft investment in the TE position except the Carolina Panthers. The Bills have none.

 

Super Bowl teams are spending over 23%- or almost a quarter of their Top of the Draft Budget- on DL, while the Bills have committed less than 16%.

Thanks for doing all this work. One of the things that jumped out at me was that Super Bowl teams devoted 8% of their resources to RBs, while the Bills devoted a whopping 20%. A running back is typically able to make an immediate impact. However, a RB's career is typically shorter than most other positions.

 

During his stay in Buffalo, TD used two picks in the first two rounds on running backs: Travis Henry in the 2nd, and Willis McGahee in the first. In that same span, he used just one pick in the first two rounds on the offensive line.

 

I don't mind TD's decision to invest draft picks in the WR position. The Colts, for example, used first round picks on Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne. Guys like Michael Irvin and Jerry Rice were chosen in the first round. There's nothing wrong with using a first round pick on your #1 or #2 WR. TD's problem was that he repeatedly used 2nd round picks on undersized slot receivers, while neglecting the offensive line.

 

The whole point of using a first or second round pick on a position should be to fill that position, for many years to come. Often, that's not what happened with TD. He began his tenure in Buffalo by using a first round pick on Nate Clements (as opposed to giving Antoine Winfield an extension). His 2nd round pick that year was on a RB that was our starter for around, ahem, 3.5 years, before being traded away. His third round pick was used on another "first contract and out" player--this one at LT. After Clements' contract had expired, the only player we had left from that draft was Aaron Schobel.

 

In 2002, TD again demonstrated his penchant for quick fixes, by trading away a first round pick for someone else's aging veteran QB. 2003 was the second time in three years that TD used a high draft pick on a RB. Over a three year span, TD used two first round picks on a QB--once in 2002, and again in 2004.

 

If you want to be in the Colts/Chargers/Patriots/Jaguars category of teams, you need a solid core of players--guys whom you can count on to give you a high level of play for many years to come. TD failed in Buffalo because he failed to build such a core. There were two reasons for this failure: the shortsightedness I've already touched upon, and the fact that he often seemed to value athleticism and measurables more than intangibles.

[Ramius]

So a guy goes and studies the top 2 rounds of the last seven drafts for SB teams, declares his findings, and it's disputed?

 

Arguing with Raimus is like yelling at what Raimus rhymes with...you'll never get anywhere. It's like trying to tell a blind man what Niagara Falls looks like.

 

Amazingly, people still don't understand that the game is won in the trenches and with QB's. Go figure, Losman wasn't good, the OL had guys like Villarrial, Gandy, and Fowler starting one season. The DT's were sub 300 pounders pushed out of the way like a bully taking candy from a kindergartner. No playoffs? Makes plenty of sense.

 

Good teams draft DL, as a matter of fact. Not surprisingly, the Bills starting front four this coming season were all originally drafted in either rounds 1 or 2! And we wonder if DL isn't important!

 

No one here is saying the DL is unimportant. Its very important, which is why the Bills brought in 2 new DTs this offseason. I am arguing the premise that the only way to be successful if to draft DTs early, and the premise that drafting a WR this draft will somehow guarantee the bills will go 4-12.

 

And his "statistical analysis" is so full of holes its laughable.

[2020 Our Year For Sure]

Quick question...why are DE and DT grouped into DL? Certainly teams would draft defensive line as a whole more frequently than they would recievers. DE and DT are two seperate positions, just as WR and TE are two seperate positions, just as QB and RB are two seperate positions.

 

Its a good thing my prior experience tells me that AKC would never set parameters based on some kind of bias.

[Dibs]

So a guy goes and studies the top 2 rounds of the last seven drafts for SB teams, declares his findings, and it's disputed?

Of course it is disputed! In previous threads I showed that the positions selected in the 7 drafts for teams leading up to a SB appearance was no different than the rest of the league.

If people really really want I will use his 'point' system on those 10 SB teams in the 7 drafts leading up to their appearances(far more relevant than the latest 7 drafts).....as well as every team for the last 7 drafts.....and it will show absolutely no correlation to what he is saying.

I am a BIG believer in building the lines. I am a BIGGER believer in putting forward information in a manner that does not try to distort the facts.

Wow. Statistics that actually say what I have been thinking.

NO THEY DON'T!!!!!

Bull.....The Giants lead the league in Sacks. That would make any DB look good.

Are you following this at all?

Productivity of position is not being discussed at all.....which is a major flaw in the whole premise of studying draft selections.

In relation to the original premise that 'good teams spend more resources on the DL in the draft' I showed that the Giants actually spent more on the DB position(using AKCs system).

What does that prove?

It does not say that the way to build a team is to by drafting DBs. It does however say that to say 'good teams spend more resources on the DL in the draft' is not correct. In order for it to be correct, one would have to show the drafting percentages of all teams.....compared to those of teams preceding their SB appearances.

 

A team that drafts DL often but busts out on most of those picks(i.e. Browns 200-2001....Cardinals 1996-2003) has no success.

AKC won't even adapted his premise to 'successful' drafting of DLmen. The theory as it stands is just plain incorrect.

 

*In context.....as I said....I am a BIG believer in building a team through the lines. The point is that there are many, many ways to do this & trying to force the concept that 'successful teams draft DLmen more than unsuccessful teams' by distorting numbers is disingenuous & stupid.*

[Dibs]

.....The whole point of using a first or second round pick on a position should be to fill that position, for many years to come......

BINGO!

....and if that does not happen(most often at the QB position) teams will keep spending resources(not just draft picks) on filling that position.

Conversely, if a team has filled a position through whatever means(FA, later round picks, etc) they will not spend as many resources on that position.

 

Why is this soooooo hard for certain posters here to understand?